Posted: Jun 13, 2010 4:48 pm
Allopathy is shortsighted as a result of the approach it takes, and is almost unable to treat the entire person. Even homepathy falls short of this ideal, to treat the entire person, simply due to logistics and lack of complete knowledge about any patient.
What does it actually mean "to treat the entire patient"? If we give someone antibiotics to kill the bacteria which have infected their toe, how is this deficient? Their problem is that there are a whole bunch of bacteria in their toe getting up to no good, and the antibiotics get rid of them. Once this is done, what more is there to do? Why do we need to 'treat the entire patient', when there's nothing wrong with the rest of the patient? It's like criticising the fire brigade for simply dealing with the one house that happens to be on fire, rather than 'treating the entire neighbourhood' that has no fire problems whatsoever.